Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Low (David Bowie album)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2021 [1].

Low (David Bowie album) edit

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... David Bowie's 1977 album Low, an album widely considered his greatest and with good reason. Side one is full of incomplete songs while side two is full of ambient pieces. Sometimes compared to Radiohead's Kid A, it's easy to understand why critical reception was so divided initially (though not commercially, to the label's surprise). Nevertheless, the influence this album left was almost immediate. Without this album, we wouldn't have Joy Division or the majority of post-punk. In my opinion, this album really is an experience. I've worked all year on this article and fully believe it's ready to become featured, especially after a thorough PR, copy-edit, and GAN. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. Happy editing. :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- I don't know how I missed this earlier but, Zmbro, per the FAC instructions you're only permitted one solo nom at a time, unless your current nom is very close to promotion (i.e. source and image reviews plus several reviews supportive of promotion) and you've checked with a coord about a second. Usually we simply remove out-of-process noms but as this one is a few days in and has reviews, we'll let it go, but remember next time pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose My apologies I was not aware. I'll keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

After years of drug addiction and personal instability while living in Los Angeles... - not fond of "personal instability"...maybe just "burnout"? or leave out altogether (as implied by drug addiction)?
Removed that part.
was at the end of my tether physically and emotionally and had serious doubts about my sanity. - this is used twice - once at end of Background and inspiration section and then (split) in 2nd last para of Recording and production' section.
Wow you're right, that's embarrassing. Removed the second one.
Low is noted for its unique drum sound - not a fan of "unique" here as strictly speaking just about everything is unique..or it isn't "unusual" or maybe leave out an adjective altogether...
'Unusual' works.
Bowie was flattered by the symphony and gave unanimous praise to it, - a single person can't give "unanimous" praise. Need another adjective.
Just removed it since "gave unanimous praise" is already used earlier.
Retrospectively, Low has received critical acclaim - this is redundant if you stick a "later" in the next sentence
Removed that and partially reworded per FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Above are just quibbles really - a nice read and comprehensive. Within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Thanks for the kind words! Queries taken care of. – zmbro (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(chuckle) I recall an interview with Bowie years ago where he reminisced about him and Iggy leaving LA to get away from drugs and then chuckling about Berlin (the implication was something like out of the frying pan into the fire..)...but you got me to listen to the album which I'd never done before and it was good. kudos/all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, something like "I moved from the coke capital of the world to the smack capital of the world", wasn't it...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah that was it XD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I had participated in the peer review for this article, and all of my concerns were addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Are there any better-quality replacements for File:David_bowie_05061978_01_150.jpg and File:Stephen_Morris_performing_with_New_Order,_2012.jpg?
  • For the first no. That's literally the only photo of Bowie from '77–'80 that WP has. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second, the only photos of him available are here, and I don't think many of those are better than the current one. Please let me know if you think otherwise and I'll change it. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:David_Bowie_Breaking_Glass.ogg: given the length of the original, this exceeds the guidelines set out in WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria My bad. I uploaded a shortened audio clip of only ten seconds that solely highlights the drum sound. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian edit

Recusing coord duties to review...

  • Copyedited down to Side Two -- although it's really down to being time for bed where I am, it seems appropriate given the album's celebrated dual structure to stop the first part of the copyedit at this point.
  • My initial impressions are that we could cut some detail, and paraphrase or lose a few quotes with which the article is laden. Both these issues are understandable given the amount of literature on the album and its importance in the Bowie canon but we need to summarise a bit more I think. I'll sleep on it and come back with further edits to the rest of the article and suggestions for cuts or paraphrases overall.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Evening Ian, has that been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that ping seemed to show up only yesterday yet it's dated the 19th -- admittedly I have been taking a bit of break since the weekend, if you can give me a bit longer to go through the latest version... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Graham Beards edit

I made some edits to the Lead [2], which perhaps need explaining since one was reverted.

  • This "After years of drug addiction living in Los Angeles," needs a conjunction because drug addiction did not live in LA; Bowie did. I changed it to "After years of drug addiction when living in Los Angeles, Bowie moved to France in 1976". "While" might be a better choice.
  • This needs a proposition "Sessions began at Hérouville's Château d'Hérouville in September 1976 and ended in October at Hansa Studios in West Berlin, where Bowie and Pop had moved." You can use "to where (they) had moved" or the more ugly "moved to". Either way, it needs a preposition otherwise it just means they were moving (around and around) there. I don't know why the nominator thinks "to where" makes no sense. (Take a look at Preposition stranding).

I think there is still work needed on the prose.—Graham Beards (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...? – zmbro (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the improvements that have been made to the article since I wrote the above.Graham Beards (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Gog, I think the article is much improved and I am pleased Support on Criterion 1a. -Graham Beards (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Popcornfud edit

I've stayed out of FA/GA stuff for a few years now, but as I seem to have caused some upset by making copyedits to this article recently, and zmbro suggested I comment on the FAC instead, here are my two cents.

I think this is a really thorough and well researched article that has the basis for a really great article. I coincidentally just checked out the article as I was listening to Low for the first time recently (yes I know, I hang my head in shame for this lateness), and it definitely enriched my appreciation of the album. As a gearhead, the stuff about the pitch shifter on the drums I found especially interesting.

I agree with comments above that the prose could still use some sharpening, which I've attempted to help with. I have apprehensions about the information hierarchy with the "Overview" heading, which in my view is redundant - an artificial fix to address anxiety over "Drum sound" sharing equal heading weight with the "Tracks" sections. As the drum sound information seems to more describe the process by which the drum sound was achieved rather than describe the music, I suspect it could be integrated into the Production section instead. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Drum sound section belongs under production. Graham Beards (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially had it under there. The issue I have is that there's enough info on it to warrant its own sub-section, but imo you can't put it at the end of recording because then it interrupts flow. I would like to separate recording into sub-sections ala Station to Station but I can't find the right grouping. If drum sound can manage to go under recording in a good way then the overview sub-section can go. – zmbro (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Popcornfud Re-pinging. What you thinking here? – zmbro (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like much has changed in the article regarding the placement of the "drum sound" stuff and the "overview" hierarchy, so I don't have much new to say. I don't really get involved in FA/GA stuff any more - if other editors feel there is no issue here then don't let me become an obstacle to FA or whatever. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Popcornfud How's that look? :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Popcornfud (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv edit

All ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1054642237.

  • What makes National RockStar (ref #74) reliable (or I suppose, significant for opinion)?
    • I found it on Rock's Backpages and wanted to get as many reviews as possible. I personally think "his most bizarre and adventurous LP" is pretty good to have. – zmbro (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we should work out the significance/reliability of the source independently of how desperately you want to be able to use it. I've found a bio of the journalist here and despite his somewhat gutter press affiliations in later life, including work for a fake news outlet, I'm happy enough that he was a professional journalist and his opinion is significant in the given context. — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am satisfied of the reliability of all other sources—books, magazines, newspapers, encyclopediae and websites. It's a very impressive reference list.
  • Thank you! I tried my best :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling Stone should be linked in ref #56, I think (appears you're doing linking on first occurrence only).
  • Ultimate Classic Rock should be linked in ref #68, not #69.
  • In ref #80, I think Red Bull Music Academy should be linked and not in italics (publisher, not website).
  • Refs #144, #162 and #237 shouldn't link Billboard.
  • Ref #160 is missing a closing quote mark.
  • In ref #197, The Guardian should be linked.
  • "a.k.a. J. Peter Robinson and Paul Buckmaster who had worked with Bowie on The Man Who Fell to Earth soundtrack" – Can we have a comma before "who"?
  • Above seven fixed
  • The Rolling Stone source cited doesn't seem to verify It was released in CD, vinyl and digital formats, as part of this compilation and then separately the following year.
  • Replaced with Uncut and Pitchfork, which verify the release formats, and trimmed the latter half of the sentence as I couldn't verify that. – zmbro (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quote box says I was in serious public decline but "public" isn't present in the Telegraph's quotation.
  • Fixed
  • Ref #228 doesn't work for me ("Whitelabel Error Page").
  • Some book sources taken on good faith, but checked a couple of the ones I could access, as well as some of the media sources and charts. No issues other than those above.

— Bilorv (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the other responses, just waiting on a solution to the musicline.de deadlink ("Whitelabel Error Page"), unless it's just on my end that the page isn't loading. — Bilorv (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv It's erroring for me too. The chart template is being used for that one so I'm not exactly sure how to fix that. Any ideas? – zmbro (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, another reason I hate the chart template. You can manually write a reference using a parameter in the template—see Template:Album chart#Manual referencing. However, I'm not quite sure what the intended reference page is. Wayback Machine doesn't show anything on the target page, while a search within the website brings up these two pages for Low, but I can't see that either verify any chart positions: [3][4]. — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv Hmm. If we can't verify the positions should we just remove it? – zmbro (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv Done. – zmbro (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that's a support on sourcing from me then. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Low_(David_Bowie_album)/archive1&oldid=1057332346"